2014-11-26 14:54 GMT+01:00 Igor Stasenko <[email protected]>: > > > On 26 November 2014 at 08:33, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> On 25 Nov 2014, at 23:39, Nicolai Hess <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> >> 2014-11-24 23:34 GMT+01:00 Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected]>: >> >>> both are integrated into the image. >>> while NB has been maintained directly, athens should still be loadable >>> (if not the case… we have a problem for the future :P). >>> >> >> what does that mean for athens, yes unload and loadable from the image or >> loadable from the sthub repository? >> >> >> > The process is simple: > - Athens has own repository where its sources are maintained and updated > etc.. > - an updates then can be loaded into Pharo image(s), so it can come with > Pharo distribution by default. > > It is important to keep this project in separate repository, that helps > with managing it and producing predictable results. >
Ah, that is what I wanted to know. > The fact that Athens are part of Pharo distribution don't means, that its > repository should be abandoned and all updates should come directly to > Pharo. That would be a huge mistake. > That's how I've done it recently. I'll merge the changes from pharo -> athens repository. > Doing everything in a monolithic image is a planning mess, and works fine > only for bug fixing or small refactorings. > > Anything which requires sizable planning and designing, should have own > line of development and maintenance, > like that there's a clear separation of the responsibility for maintaining > the project in healthy state and less bottlenecks. > > > no idea… I guess is the same case, but I have no control over that area. >> Igor will know better :) >> >> Esteban >> >> >> > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. >
